Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Today's 7am stock exchange announcement - Rangers reject Sarver's second offer because they don't believe it will get 75% approval at an EGM.

12 January 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

("Rangers", "RIFC" or the "Company")

Rejection of Possible Offer

The Board of Rangers has considered the revised possible offer from Robert Sarver (or a vehicle to be established and controlled by him) ("Mr Sarver") which Mr Sarver announced on 8 January.

The revised proposal by Mr Sarver was similar to his first proposal in the respect that it sought a placing of 100 million shares (to be priced at 20p in this proposal) ("Placing") which, would require the approval of shareholders (at least a 75% majority) at a general meeting. The Board of Rangers rejected the first proposal from Mr Sarver on 6 January on the basis that the Board felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming. Following receipt of the revised proposal from Mr Sarver, the Board has sought the views of a number of major shareholders on this revised proposal and has reached the same conclusion, namely that the resolution to approve the placing is unlikely to achieve the 75% majority required. Accordingly, once again, the Directors do not intend to hold the General Meeting which would be necessary to implement the revised proposal.

Ends

For further information please contact:

Rangers International Football Club plc

Tel: 0141 580 8647

David Somers

WH Ireland Limited

Tel: 020 7220 1666

Adrian Hadden / Paul Shackleton

Newgate Threadneedle

Tel: 020 7148 6143

Roddy Watt / Ed Treadwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why reject because they think the vote won't be approved, rather than just go ahead and see anyway?

Self preservation?

Cost of setting up and holding the vote?

I'm of the opinion that Sarver is working with Ashley and the bid was designed to be rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why reject because they think the vote won't be approved, rather than just go ahead and see anyway?

Self preservation?

Cost of setting up and holding the vote?

De j'a vous...

Probably best if we all head back to the beginnig of the thread and save ourselves a lot of repetition...

I wonder if Chucky Green is rounding up a consortium...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that Sarver is working with Ashley and the bid was designed to be rejected.

Fair enough, but to me, it seems like they want the guy to go away. Best way to prove that he's not wanted is to seek the opinion of all the shareholders, and if the 75% approval isn't achieved, that's more likely to kill his interest stone dead. Whereas if he's told "we're not even taking a vote, you're not in" is likely to keep him interested.

I think it's the cost thing that's stopping them going the whole hog and taking a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but to me, it seems like they want the guy to go away. Best way to prove that he's not wanted is to seek the opinion of all the shareholders, and if the 75% approval isn't achieved, that's more likely to kill his interest stone dead. Whereas if he's told "we're not even taking a vote, you're not in" is likely to keep him interested.

I think it's the cost thing that's stopping them going the whole hog and taking a vote.

The cost thing will play a part, but if you know before hand that 75% won't agree then there is no point in putting it out. The board can easily ask 3 or 4 major shareholders if they would go for it, and if they say no then they are as well just doing what they have. Why waste money on an EGM?

The other point you make is also relevant. This might keep the guy interested and that might mean he improves his offer, which again is another positive.

For me there are just too many coincidences with Sarver and Ashley seeming to know each other despite the statement released saying otherwise. In the last few years we've all seen several times that really, there are no coincidences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King and the Three Bears have just pumped money into shares. I doubt they want to see their shares/power diluted or take a loss on their purchases by selling.

The only option left to the board is an emergency loan.

I doubt the Three gummy bears and King will stump up without ridiculous demands for seats or security. Over to Mike to increase his security or let them go under ..

If King does loan money without board representation or security .... it will be hoovered up by the spivs.

Going under seems the best bet :thumsup2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

For me there are just too many coincidences with Sarver and Ashley seeming to know each other despite the statement released saying otherwise. In the last few years we've all seen several times that really, there are no coincidences.

Indeed. "Coincidences", in business, are mostly deliberate acts brought about by intentional manouvering

behind the scenes.

By continuously rejecting hostile takeover bids, this board must have an end game scenario they hope to achieve and the proxys held by the Sleazedales are the real power brokers here.

In every outcome though, the price tag for control is one thing. Continued and future funding quite another if they insist on rapid top level competition.

Also, it's time everyone, especially our bears, stopped using the term 'investment'. It's proper meaning is wholly different to what's being asked for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it's time everyone, especially our bears, stopped using the term 'investment'. It's proper meaning is wholly different to what's being asked for...

In fairness to Charles Green, he made a great investment in this saga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...